Porn trolling has never been a glamorous business. But as judges, bar associations, and others have gotten wind of just how sleazy the porn-trolling business model is, trolling law firms have faced more and more obstacles. One trolling firm hit a new low on Tuesday, when an exasperated federal judge in Tampa, FL, threw out its copyright infringement case.

In a surreal court session, Judge Mary Scriven grilled several individuals with ties to Prenda Law, a law firm that specializes in copyright trolling, and its alleged client, a porn company called Sunlust Pictures. (We say "alleged" because Prenda now claims, unconvincingly, that it was never involved in the case.) It quickly became obvious that no one in the courtroom had any significant ties to the supposed plaintiffs, or even knowledge of who they were. So Judge Scriven dismissed the case for, among other things, "attempted fraud on the Court" for sending a "representative" to court who knew next to nothing about the company he was representing.

State of confusion

In an exposé published earlier this year, the blog Fight Copyright Trolls details how Illinois attorney John Steele opened a branch of his law practice in Miami despite not being licensed to practice law in Florida. A Florida attorney who specializes in representing defendants in troll cases, Graham Syfert, thought Steele's operation seemed fishy and asked the Florida Bar to investigate. The bar got Steele to sign an affidavit promising not to practice law in Florida.

Fast forward to this Tuesday's hearing in Judge Scriven's courtroom. A porn company called Sunlust Pictures is suing a defendant, Tuan Nguyen. Sunlust was represented by a local Florida attorney named Jonathan Torres, who told Judge Scriven that he was appearing on behalf of Prenda Law, a law firm with ties to Steele. Syfert, the attorney who had reported Steele to the Florida Bar, was representing the defendant and had filed a brief arguing that the plaintiffs had concealed key information from the court. So the judge began to ask questions about who exactly was representing Sunlust.

"I'm a little confused," she said. "There was a lawyer who moved to withdraw, and there was another lawyer who moved to appear, then he moved to withdraw." She then asked: "Who is on first, I guess?"

Scriven had good reason to be confused. Torres, speaking to the court by phone, said he had been brought into the case recently as a Florida counsel by Prenda Law. But Judge Scriven said, "I got a letter from someone from the Prenda Law Group saying they were not representing any party in this case and were not involved in the case and had no authority to speak on anyone's behalf in this case."

In any event, Torres told the judge he wanted to be excused from the case because he was recently "contacted by defense counsel and was advised of certain issues that were going on in the case."

Torres was brought into the case after the previous Florida counsel, Matthew Wasinger, himself decided to bow out of the case earlier in the month. Indeed, as Fight Copyright Trolls documents, the position of Florida counsel for Prenda has been something of a revolving door. Prior to Torres and Wasinger, two other Florida attorneys have asked to withdraw from the case since August. Fight Copyright Trolls speculates that as soon as attorneys realize the "stink" associated with Prenda Law cases, they bow out to avoid putting their reputations at risk.

"Not involved in this case"

So who is "Sunlust Pictures, LLC?" A man named Mark Lutz was in the courtroom as the company's representative. But it turned out that he was a "representative" in only the loosest sense of the term. Under questioning from Judge Scriven, Lutz admitted that he wasn't an attorney, wasn't an officer of Sunlust, was not "authorized to bind the company to any legal contracts," and couldn't even name any of Sunlust's officers. Indeed Lutz admitted he was not a salaried employee of Sunlust at all. He was an independent contractor whose only role with Sunlust was to show up in court on their behalf.

Judge Scriven then spotted another man near the plaintiff's table and asked who he was. "Your Honor, my name is John Steele," he said. "I'm an attorney, but not involved in this case," he said. Indeed, he stressed that "I want to make very clear to this Court I'm not purporting in any way to be an attorney licensed in the State of Florida."

Syfert, the defense attorney, then helpfully pointed out that Lutz used to work for Steele. "Mr. Lutz was actually a paralegal and debt collector for Prenda Law when it was a multi-state, multi-jurisdictional law firm between here and Illinois," Syfert told Judge Scriven. The judge grilled Steele about his knowledge of Sunlust, but Steele also pled ignorance about who owns and operates Sunlust Pictures.

The exasperated judge told Lutz the court would not consider him a representative of Sunlust. "You're not a corporate representative of anybody if you don't have any information about the corporation," she said. Given that neither Lutz, Steele, or Torres were able to speak on behalf of Sunlust, that meant that there was no one available to speak on behalf of the plaintiff.

It also meant that for this copyright trolling, it was game over.

"The case is dismissed for failure to appear at this hearing, for failure to present a lawful agent, for attempted fraud on the Court by offering up a person who has no authority to act on behalf of the corporation as its corporate representative, and the Court will hear, by motion, a motion for sanctions and fees against this Sunlust entity and everyone affiliated with it, including a motion against Mr. Wasinger for his purposeful failure to appear at this hearing," Judge Scriven said, according to the official transcript.

She also said that Paul Duffy, the man who currently runs Prenda Law, may face sanctions for his "lack of candor" in claiming not to be involved in the case, when Torres had testified that Prenda had asked him to join it. Judge Scriven plans to "advise the other judges in the courthouse of the nature of this matter and may refer this matter to the Florida Bar for further proceedings."

46 Reader Comments

Do they exist at all? I mean, if some random guy decided to pass as a porn company to extort money, then ask another random dude to represent his non-existent company, that would bring copyright trolling to a whole new level.

So let me get this straight. Torres is working for Prenda, who is associated with Steele, on behalf of Sunlust, yet Prenda claims to have nothing to do with Sunlust and know nothing about the case. Lutz was an representative of Sunlust, yet knew nothing about Sunlust, and had connections to Prenda (who claimed not to be involved in the case). Steel was there, yet also had nothing to do with the case (so why the hell was he there?), yet had connections to Lutz. So we have 3 people who can't speak for Sunlust, know nothing about Sunlust, all had connections with each other and a law firm that said it also wasn't on the case and had no connection to Sunlust.

I can understand the "whose on first" line. I'm with zneak: is Sunlust even a real company, or is everyone involved so sleazy they don't want to associate or claim any connections to anyone else?

Do they exist at all?...EDIT: I won't google a porn company from my work computer.

Googled it using my phone.According to their website, "Sun Lust Pictures was founded in 2008 as a partnership between Sunny Leone and Daniel Weber. With Vivid as partnets and doing all distribution world wide SunLust Pictures has already made its mark on the industry."

So let me get this straight. Torres is working for Prenda, who is associated with Steele, on behalf of Sunlust, yet Prenda claims to have nothing to do with Sunlust and know nothing about the case. Lutz was an representative of Sunlust, yet knew nothing about Sunlust, and had connections to Prenda (who claimed not to be involved in the case). Steel was there, yet also had nothing to do with the case (so why the hell was he there?), yet had connections to Lutz. So we have 3 people who can't speak for Sunlust, know nothing about Sunlust, all had connections with each other and a law firm that said it also wasn't on the case and had no connection to Sunlust.

I can understand the "whose on first" line. I'm with zneak: is Sunlust even a real company, or is everyone involved so sleazy they don't want to associate or claim any connections to anyone else?

I think you have it right, but I must admit I'm so baffled by the convoluted nature nature of the whole 'it appears we're all here by proxy, I don't understand the connections, and I'm here but have no connection to the case' argument that that this whole episode has moved into the surreal. I'd try to piece it together myself but what would that accomplish?

Thank you, Tim! I thought it was impossible to re-tell this Kafkaesque transcript as a story, but you managed to do it brilliantly.

It is pity that Steele was not put under oath, because he said:

Quote:

I'm not an attorney with any law firm right now, but I have worked with Mr. Duffy in the past and I am certainly familiar with this litigation just because I've been involved in many different cases like this in the past.

I can understand the "whose on first" line. I'm with zneak: is Sunlust even a real company, or is everyone involved so sleazy they don't want to associate or claim any connections to anyone else?

Maybe Sunlust just took a fee from the trolls to let them chase downloads of their titles, and had nothing more to do with it.

Yeah, this seems the most likely. I'm guessing that this aggregate of lawyers has some connections in the Porn industry. They probably just get Porn companies to sign on and provide a list of their titles and some scant contract for these lawyers' services in getting settlements. Once they find someone who downloaded one of them, they go after them without really informing or involving the other company. Then, they split the settlement (likely with the bulk of the money going to the lawyers).

Thus, they don't really represent the companies; they exist for the sole purpose of sending out settlement requests. The inside of a courtroom is probably the last place they want to be.

But as judges, bar associations, and others have gotten wind of just how sleazy the porn-trolling business model is

How sleazy porn IP lawsuits are!? How about how sleazy IP lawsuits in general are? It's an absolutely reprehensible tactic for a corporation to take an individual involved in small-scale, personal use infringement to court under laws that were intended to protect them from organized crime level infringement. It's a complete racket from top to bottom.

Regardless of whether or not they have the right to do so doesn't make it ok for any of these companies, no matter what products they make, to do so.

Thank you, Tim! I thought it was impossible to re-tell this Kafkaesque transcript as a story, but you managed to do it brilliantly.

It is pity that Steele was not put under oath, because he said:

Quote:

I'm not an attorney with any law firm right now, but I have worked with Mr. Duffy in the past and I am certainly familiar with this litigation just because I've been involved in many different cases like this in the past.

Where's that John Steele Ars forum account to come in and post about how this was actually somehow a victory for him, and the porn thieves will get what's coming to them?

Seems to have curiously disappeared within this last year.

To the best of my knowledge, his last appearance here was in comments to this article, first comment on the second page. Don't remember seeing him after that.

He is a regular on my and DieTrollDie's forums though

Maybe you could ask him what he was doing at the plaintiff's table if he was basically just in the courtroom as an audience member. Shouldn't he have been behind the bar with all the other non-interested members of the public?

People were wondering if Sunlust just got paid and set the lawyers loose, they do not understand copyright trolling. Sunlust more than likely was contacted or met at a trade show by one of these pirate chasing firms. For "NO MONEY DOWN!" the firm will get you what your due from those evil pirates ruining your business!Estimates put the take at up to 80% of each dollar extorted staying with the firm.The porn houses make a few hundred from each settlement, and don't understand why the public is upset... they don't look at how the sausage is being made and don't care. 80 yr olds who didn't do the crime, but are embarrassed to be associated with scandalous titles or believe the trolls claims they are at fault for the actions of others because they pay the bill.

There are newer versions of trolling featuring Righthaven style transfers of copyrights to offshore entities in tax havens... the corruption is deep with these scum.

And in something I find truly amazing, no court has had an independent review of the monitoring tech being used... or looked into the arrangements with the firm doing it. Would you trust an expert witness who gets a cut from each settlement their "evidence" leads to?

People were wondering if Sunlust just got paid and set the lawyers loose, they do not understand copyright trolling. Sunlust more than likely was contacted or met at a trade show by one of these pirate chasing firms. For "NO MONEY DOWN!" the firm will get you what your due from those evil pirates ruining your business!Estimates put the take at up to 80% of each dollar extorted staying with the firm.

This is interesting, but where's it from? Whose take?

Quote:

And in something I find truly amazing, no court has had an independent review of the monitoring tech being used... or looked into the arrangements with the firm doing it. Would you trust an expert witness who gets a cut from each settlement their "evidence" leads to?

This is uninformed, and makes me wonder about the sourcing for the earlier parts of your post.

Courts aren't in the business of conducting "independent reviews" of witnesses or evidence, nor is it their job to ferret out witnesses with an interest in the outcome, since most witnesses in cases have an interest in the outcome. Particularly the person being sued.

Of course the payment arrangements for all witnesses are admissible evidence, and the jury can make their own determination as to the witnesses' credibility. But AFAICT, these guys haven't even come close to complying with enough rules that would bring them anywhere close to a trial, and it doesn't seem to be their intention to do so. So we seem far away from any potential expert witnesses.

People were wondering if Sunlust just got paid and set the lawyers loose, they do not understand copyright trolling. Sunlust more than likely was contacted or met at a trade show by one of these pirate chasing firms. For "NO MONEY DOWN!" the firm will get you what your due from those evil pirates ruining your business!Estimates put the take at up to 80% of each dollar extorted staying with the firm.

This is interesting, but where's it from? Whose take?

Quote:

And in something I find truly amazing, no court has had an independent review of the monitoring tech being used... or looked into the arrangements with the firm doing it. Would you trust an expert witness who gets a cut from each settlement their "evidence" leads to?

This is uninformed, and makes me wonder about the sourcing for the earlier parts of your post.

Courts aren't in the business of conducting "independent reviews" of witnesses or evidence, nor is it their job to ferret out witnesses with an interest in the outcome, since most witnesses in cases have an interest in the outcome. Particularly the person being sued.

Of course the payment arrangements for all witnesses are admissible evidence, and the jury can make their own determination as to the witnesses' credibility. But AFAICT, these guys haven't even come close to complying with enough rules that would bring them anywhere close to a trial, and it doesn't seem to be their intention to do so. So we seem far away from any potential expert witnesses.

Ummm lets see. I've been fighting copyright trolls since USCG started. I might have had a hand in the downfall of Evan Stone. The model they are using started in Germany, was exported to the UK. ACS:Law anyone? Then Dunlap, whatcha jigger and whosawhatzit formed USCG to keep their hands clean and started in the US for Voltage.Then the porn trolls started, because porn allegations pay off faster. People don't like their name attached to many of the lovely titles, and often believe the trolls when they claim the accountholder is responsible because their name is on the bill.

The business is lucrative, and the firm takes on all of the financial burden, this is how they justify keeping a majority of the money. A cut goes to the IP tracking company, funny how a majority of them are German, from each settlement. A cut goes to cover the costs paid to the ISPs for the records lookup.

Reports of drunken troll lawyers at the largest porn show in Vegas, look it up.

Courts are accepting "expert" testimony provided by a self proclaimed expert, getting a cut of each settlement, and oh hey there is that contract used by 1 tracking firm that allows them to setup "honeypots" to create the filesharing they seek to profit from. Unclean hands, the lawyer knows his expert created the situation and now seeks to profit. If a lawyer cut the brake lines on cars, so he could sue the manufacturer I'm pretty sure that isn't legal.

There is the rub, the Does historically are NEVER SUED. And well Judge Howell decided that he Does lack standing to challenge the merits of the case because they aren't parties to the case. She doesn't even care if she lacks jurisdiction over the Does.

The burden to get records of account holders really needs to be be higher than, the guy who gets a cut from each person we extort says he saw them do it. One can show multiple cases where the lawyer KNEW he was assisting in the "crime" of the infringment, and did so to seek settlements rather than use any tools available to end the infringment at the course. Look up the story about Evan Stone here, he used an off the shelf, unmodified BT client that uploaded and downloaded the files he was checking to see if they were infact his clients works.

But as judges, bar associations, and others have gotten wind of just how sleazy the porn-trolling business model is

How sleazy porn IP lawsuits are!? How about how sleazy IP lawsuits in general are? It's an absolutely reprehensible tactic for a corporation to take an individual involved in small-scale, personal use infringement to court under laws that were intended to protect them from organized crime level infringement. It's a complete racket from top to bottom.

Regardless of whether or not they have the right to do so doesn't make it ok for any of these companies, no matter what products they make, to do so.

All true, but the porn trolls have that extra layer of moral filth due to the level of blackmail involved. Mud sticks and no-one wants to be known as a tight-fisted masturbator, so victims tend to pay up.

I can understand the "whose on first" line. I'm with zneak: is Sunlust even a real company, or is everyone involved so sleazy they don't want to associate or claim any connections to anyone else?

Maybe Sunlust just took a fee from the trolls to let them chase downloads of their titles, and had nothing more to do with it.

Yeah, this seems the most likely. I'm guessing that this aggregate of lawyers has some connections in the Porn industry. They probably just get Porn companies to sign on and provide a list of their titles and some scant contract for these lawyers' services in getting settlements. Once they find someone who downloaded one of them, they go after them without really informing or involving the other company. Then, they split the settlement (likely with the bulk of the money going to the lawyers).

Thus, they don't really represent the companies; they exist for the sole purpose of sending out settlement requests. The inside of a courtroom is probably the last place they want to be.

I am sure it is a lot light debt collection agencies. Probably the lawyers promise the companies that they'll either give them a % of the collections taken in, or maybe a % of the demands sent out or something like that. Probably no active involvement from the companies themselves other than maybe providing a list of IP that the lawyers can attempt to track down out on the internets.

Timothy B. Lee / Timothy covers tech policy for Ars, with a particular focus on patent and copyright law, privacy, free speech, and open government. His writing has appeared in Slate, Reason, Wired, and the New York Times.